On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:17:17 +0800, Jason Chong wrote:
>John wrote:

>> The Sony TRV25 supposedly has 1 megapixel resolution which appears to be
>> substantially higher than the Canon. That was really my deciding factor.
>> So, I bit the bullet and paid the extra for the Sony.

>Well that would be a turn-off for me. I don't like megapixel camcorders,
>they
>take poor pictures in low light. I have no need for stills. I want a
>camcorder, not a camera.

It turns out that the higher pixel count does have advantages in the motion-video image, with better
sharpness and color...

>I wouldn't pay a few quid more for trv25 over trv16 from 7 lux to 5 lux.

In practice, near the low light limit of the less
sensitive higher-pixel-count camera, the color and
picture smoothness can be better - though the ultimate
low-light "reach" is not quite as great...

>Memory stick is about the most useless feature for me and i wondered why
>Sony even bothered with it. Shaved about 100 off between trv16 and trv18
>because of the memory stick.

I thought this - but now I use it a LOT for web,
for 3-D images, things for sale, email, etc. See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/changing.html (starting
with the fourth section), and all sections of
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs.htm.

>5 lux is basically just 1 lux more than DCR-VX9000 but still no where
>near vx2000. ;-)
>
>So for something that's cheap im probably getting better lowlight
>abilities compared to trv900. ;-)

The 900 still outperforms most other 3-CCD DV camcorders
for low-light range, let alone all the 1-chippers...